Preemption is not a Bush administration principle. It is part of an after-the-fact effort to justify the invasion of Iraq.

We delude ourselves if we take the administration's responses to public relations emergencies at face value. Preemption has been used by the United States in the past and may be again as appropriate situations arise, but lamenting America's failure to apply this "principle" to Iran and other security threats mistakes reflects a foreign policy of wishing.

Thanks for mentioning the history. It's missing too often in article on these topics (i.e. the rest of the world) in the U.S.

Any scenario that leaves Iran completely obliterated sounds just fin e to me!

Why doesn't Mr. Ferguson address some important questions. Why is it OK for Israel to have 200+ nukes, with no IAEA oversight and no signature on the non-proliferation treaty?
Because it feels threatened? And Iran doesn't? Iran is surrounded by US allies and Israel. Who overthrew the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in 1953? Is Iran a threat to the US (its nukes can't reach us)? Why is it OK for Pakistan and India to have nukes for self defense? Who is the aggressive power in the region? (answer: Israel with its sickening seizures of land and daily brutality towards the Palestinians and the US with its Iraq venture)

"counterfactual?" Is that referring to Morley's analysis? I think the facts ended with your use of "allededly war-mongering Islamic republic." What's to allege? Iran is war mongering. Hell, Islam is war mongering...regardless of how much you snark.

I am only surprised that John D did not start quoting directly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion of which I am sure he owns a copy.

Yes and I am surprised Glenn and G did quote directly for the "axis of evil" speech which I am sure is framed in both your offices. Ofcourse there is no redeeming quality for Arabs or Islam so kill them all. You are both despicable racist. You both would have loved Nazi Germany. Israel and the US are the aggressors and I really hope they both get their butts kicked and US loses its power -that would be a great day and its coming!!!.

It's pretty funny that someone called Iran "war mongering." I heard a Middle East scholar & historian say on the radio the other day that Iran hasn't attacked outside of its borders in 400+ years. We can't really say the same about Israel, can we? (It's started every war it's been in with the exception of '73.) Or Dumbya's U.S., for that matter. Facts -- frightening, aren't they.

Well, this, again, is not a world opinion, just an opinion of one person who happens to live in the world.

That said, I find the senario un-detailed in "The Great War of 2007" and full of problems:

1-Iran has a functional nuke by August 2007 that it can mount on a missle and deliver with reasonable accuracy. Anyone think that is likely in 19 months?

2-Netanyahu has stated he will preemptively hit Iran if it produces a nuke. Why does America need to be involved or be the first striker? Isreal has already proven it can take care of itself.

3-In his senario, China stops UN action by vetoing sanctions and other UN options. But China has clearly signaled they want to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

If the senario took place, China and east Asia would be hurt far more than the West. There is more oil in the world than just that in the ME and the West has the dollars to pay for it from other sources and economic/military influence to ensure it gets it. China relies heavily on Iran for oil. I think the analysis that China would assist Iran toward a nuke confrontation to be beyond simplistic and bordering on fiction.

G: "your use of 'allededly war-mongering Islamic republic.' What's to allege? Iran is war mongering."
Tell me G:

What is the last country to be attacked or invaded by an Israeli army, and when?

What is the last country to be attacked or invaded by an American army, and when?

What is the last country to be attacked or invaded by an Iranian army, and when?

1. Lebanon 1982
2. Iraq 2003
3. Afghanistan 1856

"I heard a Middle East scholar & historian say on the radio the other day that Iran hasn't attacked outside of its borders in 400+ years."

That might be true if you only counted wars which Iran actually started. The 1856 war was started by Afghanistan, for example.
I'd guess your historian is referring to the final treaty between Iran and the Ottoman Empire, at the beginning of the 17th century, which set the border that remains the line between Iran and Turkey today.

Bush Warns of Iranian Nuclear Blackmail
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060123/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc
"The world cannot be put in a position where we can be blackmailed by a nuclear weapon," he said. He also had a message for the Iranian people, saying "we have no beef with you," and expressing hope that Iraq's fledgling THEOCRACY could serve as an example for nearby Iran.

Iraqi Cleric: Militia Would Defend Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iran-Iraq-Sadr.html?pagewanted=print
The Iraqi cleric who once led two uprisings against U.S. forces said Sunday that his militia would help to defend Iran if it is attacked, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

IS ISRAEL BLACKMAILING AMERICA?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/blackmail.html
If indeed Israel is blackmailing our officials and media icons, it is because those who are being blackmailed ARE blackmailable. If we elect a government of criminals, we elect a government subject to blackmail. Finally, given the fact that blackmail may be assumed to be as widespread as the collection system itself is, those who persist in trying to defend Israel may no longer be assumed to be operating from the purest of motives. After all, who will defend a blackmailer more staunchly than those who are the blackmailer's victims?

US XXXXXXXXX George WMD Bush will not accept a nuclear Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605900030&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Bush worries that a nuclear-equipped Iran under its current leadership could well engage in a nuclear holocaust, "and that is just not something he is going to accept."

During a speech, XXXXXXXXX George WMD Bush declares: "He has weapons of mass destruction. At one time we know for certain he was close to having a nuclear weapon. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon. Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used chemical weapons."
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam/
Vice XXXXXXXXX Dick Cheney tells Meet the Press: "Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Seven GIs Killed in Iraq
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2006/jan/24/012405173.html
OCCUPIED BAGHDAD, New Iraq - The U.S. military said seven more U.S. troops had been killed - a soldier in a roadside bombing in Baghdad on Monday, two Air Force members in a blast near Taji north of the capital late Sunday, and four soldiers in a roadside bombing near the northern town of Hawijah on Friday.

Should Be a Lovely War, NO?

U.S.-Iran ties still icy 25 years after hostage drama
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1078116.php/U.S.-Iran_ties_still_icy_25_years_after_hostage_drama
Washington broke off diplomatic relations with Tehran on April 7, 1980, five months after the embassy was seized by the students, whose demands included the extradition of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran's deposed, U.S.-backed shah.

In 1953, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, Iran's democratically elected prime minister, nationalized the oil industry and entered into a close political alliance with the Communist Tudeh Party, much to the anger of the United States and Great Britain. This resulted in an embargo on Iranian oil exports, which only worsened the already fragile economy. To gain control over the Iranian oil industry the CIA and MI6 funded and lead a coup d'etat to overthrow the prime minister with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah through Operation Ajax. The coup initially failed and the Shah fled Iran. After a brief exile in Italy the Shah was brought back again, this time through a second coup which was successful. Mossadegh was arrested, tried and put under house arrest. General Fazlollah Zahedi had been chosen to succeed prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran
Reluctantly, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to make a brief stopover in the United States to undergo medical treatment. The compromise was extremely unpopular with the revolutionary movement, which were against the United States' years of support of the Shah's rule, and demanded his return to Iran to face a show trial and execution. This resulted in the capture of a number of American diplomats, military personnel and intelligence officers in what became known as the Iran hostage crisis.

Six Killed in Iran Bombings
Ahvaz was also the scene of bombings in June and October that the government blamed on Iranian Arab extremists whom it claimed were trained abroad and maintained ties to foreign governments, including Britain.

Military Action Against Iran?
XXXXXXXXX Bush has said that Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and recently used the term "grave" to describe the threat from Iran, eerily, the same term he used to describe the threat from Iraq before the U.S. invasion. But after the disaster in Iraq, an invasion probably will not be the preferred course of military action against Iran. Although the Bush administration likes to flex its muscles, it does seem capable of learning--at least in a tactical sense. Any invasion of Iran would be a daunting task, especially with almost 150,000 U.S. forces tied down in the quagmires in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has two-and-a-half times the population of Iraq, almost four times the area of that country, and is mountainous rather than flat. If the challenge of winning a counterinsurgency war against the mainly secular Sunnis in Iraq seems impossible now, fighting the fanatical religious zealots in Iran on unfavorable terrain would likely prove to be horrific.

Wow! I don't visit these blog sites very often, but hey, listen to yourselves!!!

You all seem to have the opinion that screaming abuse and obscenities at each other is equivalent to an intellectual debate.

You all seem so removed from reality that you are actually contemplating the vaporization of large populations of human beings just to prove that your political rivals are wrong.

Until people learn to articulate reasoned thoughts, they should hold their awful screeching sounds.

US/EU efforts to refer Iran to UNSC after Iran's refusal to accept restriction on Iran's right to enrich its own uranium fuel as permitted under NPT, are bound to bring the whole NPT itself into question. Afterall NPT also asks nuclear weapon states to work towards elimination of all nuclear weapons of all the countries in the world but super five are sitting pretty with their own stockpile of nuclear weapons without making even semi-effort to work towards this goal. On top of that super five are denying a basic right permitted by NPT for member countries to produce their own nuclear fuel.

Furthermore if Super Five wanted to prevent all other countries from having nuclear fuel production capability, why didn't they push for such a rule when NPT was being created? Then Super five would have found out how many countries want to go along with them. Not only that, there are divisions within super five, with four brahmins unable to prevent fifth (China) one from brazenly breaking NPT by providing nuclear technology to other non-nuclear countries.

So current US/EU efforts to haul Iran to UNSC are further going to erode legitimacy of NPT itself. Being the creator of nuclear weapons, US has to face the ultimate question squarely in the eye - does it think nuclear weapons are bad period or are they bad for some countries but good for the others. Another question that US has to ponder is weather it was really necessary for US to unleash this nuclear genie in the world in the first place?

I also would like an answer to Suresh's question.

Does the US (and the other permanent members) have any intention of observing NPT itself, or is it just other countries that are obliged to do this?

I deplore the fact that the washington post allows a total idiot like Jamie to post sucha provocative post.

How could the Washington post allow such morons to post such comments.

It's as if they condone it!

your comments are not insightful truthbtold. arguing IS the way to push a real truth across. start blabbering intellectual jargon and nobody listens because its over their head. how can anyone sit there and complain about iraq trying to build something when israel already has it (as well as the full support of the us of a, we have never voted yes on a sanction against israel). iran's leader also had a point in that oh so famous speech (i don't agree with all of it), but why did we not create a state in the us of a for the refugees to go too? why did we essentially choose the promised land? because its their birthright? that's the so called promised land of the muslims too. therein lies the issue. we have given prefrence to one party over another. until we realize that and act accordingly, things will continue to go downhill. good day.

****save your crap about saying how i put iraq, not iran. you neocons love to do that and avoid the real issue.

While worrisome, the threat of small countries like Iran possessing nuclear weapons is overblown. You may recall that not so long ago, the world was poised on the brink of a nuclear war. We're not talking about a little "Iran lauches two nukes at Isreal" nuclear war; we were one diplomatic misstep or accident away from what would essentially be the end of human civilisation on earth, at least. We're definitely better off now, even if a few small countries get nuclear weapons (which is inevitable, really).
Furthermore, why on earth would Iran launch a nuclear strike against Isreal, the one country in the region capable of significant, decisive, nuclear retaliation? A nuclear strike on Isreal would be the end of Iran as a country. No matter what you want to say about them, their not going to launch a nuclear strike for the hell of it. They can't afford to. Which is really the problem with nuclear weapons; small countries may desperately want them, and some countries can get them, but when you have 7 working nuclear weapons, and no significant delivery system, using them is like trying to win a boxing match with a hand grenade.
I think even the threat of Iran distributing them to terrorists is exaggerated. Terrorists desperately want them, too, but would you really want to be the country that gave terrorists the nuclear device they used to blow up New York City? Anyone who has enough of a sense of self preservation to become the leader of these countries know the answer to that question.

As was the case with Iraq, Bush has yet to produce any evidence that Iran is building anything other than a power station. and, like Iraq, Bush cannot explain why even with nuclear arms, Iran is any kind of threat to the United States, which possesses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and remains historically the only nation to use nuclear weapons against a civilian population.

Thanks, Truth B Told.

The screaming is getting old quick.

No, Ardeshir Rohani, washingtonpost.com does not condone inane comments.

We allow maximum latitude for free expression, drawing the line at obscenity and vulgarity.

If you don't like someone's comment, ignore it. Or better yet, submit a better one.

Nothing like one of these chats to bring the anti-Israel(Anti-semitic) crackpots out from whatever rocks they hide under.

BOMB you really need to get back on your medication and return to whatever "institution" that you escaped from.

Kara and George, your anti-semitic RAH RAH is both boring and redundant... YAWN!

Better yet is for both of you to refrain from posting useless rhetoric and let the audience of the forum to populate the forum with meaningful posts.

I think the world is tiring from this "anti-semitic" RAH RAH orchestrated from the Jewish community. You forget that "Arabs are ALSO semites"!

Give it a rest.

hese chats related to Israel seem to always degenerate into mean spirited name calling and I recommend that this topic simply not be a chat topic.

In this case, "counterfactual" is a superbly appropriate name for what Ferguson is doing, since (a) Iran could not develop a nuclear payload for years from now, even if they were working flat-out to produce one, of which there is not the slightest evidence, and (b) they have no way of delivering that payload to Israel or indeed to anywhere else not accessible by taxi, nor have they got a prayer of themselves developing the technology to fling one a thousand miles to Israel (or of hitting the place with it if they did), nor is anyone lining up to sell them one. But even more telling is (c) that Israel's (illegal) nuclear arsenal is sufficient to wipe out every village in Iran big enough to have a mosque. For Iran, even with a few rudimentary weapons and some kind of wing-and-a-prayer delivery system, to attack Israel would be like India attacking the USA. This is all of a piece with Ferguson's trademark fantasizations, like how happy all the primitive folks were under the British Empire. It is worth noting that the bitterness toward the West that is so widespread in Iran dates back to Ferguson's glorious Imperial days, when the British sense of adventure, phlegm and homicidal greed carved deep wounds in the Iranian political consciousness, wounds which the West continues to gouge at today and which largely accounts for that country's perennial ill-temper and support for extravagant rhetoric. It's about time we stopped listening to the counterfactual fantasies of the Fergusons and actually sat down with "our enemies" to work things out to everyone's advantage.

"These chats related to Israel seem to always degenerate into mean spirited name calling and I recommend that this topic simply not be a chat topic."

Ben, the whole purpose of branding anyone who discusses Israeli policy as an anti-semite is to kill discussion of Israeli policy.

Why hand them a victory?

As I have read many of your past posts OD I know your asinine views so don't even imply we are on the same side of this debate.

I could not agree more Ben OD is a complete jackass who shpould be ridiculed constantly.

It's a shame we can't see the IPs or email addresses of people posting here, "Steve", since then we could get to the roots of your multiple personality disorder.

I didn't say we were on the same side of the debate, Ben, and since I was disagreeing with you I'm not sure how you decided I was.
Your position is that these comment pages should never discuss Israel. That's not something I agree with.

Having spent most of my military service in the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, I am not impressed by either Iraq or Iran having nuclear weapons. We can destroy any country that attack us with nuclear weapons many times over. If Those civilian idiots running the defense department haven't messed with our nuclear submarines, we could destroy them even if the U.S. is totally destroyed, which would be highly unlikely with our land mass.
The point beng we have nuclear deterence coming out of our ears. Any nation would be have to be insane to attack us with nuclear weapons because they would be destroyed. While I have lost sleep over the Idiots who run this country, I have never lost any sleep over Iraq or Iran having nuclear weapons. I opposed going into Iraq because, based on America's national Interest, because it was not necessary.
As to Israel, it is the oldest nuclear power in the Middle East. While America gave them a small Nuclear power facility under the old Atoms For Peace program, it was trainig wheels compared to the one France gave them as a reward for Suez. Compared to the rest of the Middle East Israel has nuclear deterance coming out of their ears. It has been estimated that they have 200 to 400 missiles available as nuclear deterence, but that strikes me as being a few too many as nuclear deterance.
The Arrow system is for Missile defense, and I think a large number of them are devoted to that purpose.
However the best missile defense Irael has, oddly enough, is the Palestinians. nuclear weapons are weapons of "uncontrolled" mass destruction, and a nuclear strike against Israel would also take out the Palestinians. It would also take out part if not all of the neighboring Arab countries. As to a nuclear strike by Israel against Iran, it must be remembered that the wind always changes direction, and the nuclear radiation fallout would come back and bite them. Think of the Chernobyl Nuclear accident which was only one Nuclear plant, and think of Iran's many Nuclear power plants spewing out radioactive material. We are looking at the death of millions of people. You do not play political games with nuclear weapons.
Look at the Soviet experience is Afghanistan, the Israeli experience in Lebanon, and the American experience in Vietnam. These were horrendous conflicts, but enough people survived for these countries to start again. The best defense any country has is their own people. With nuclear weapons, there is no one to start again. If any nation bombs Iran, that nation is looking at the mother of all jihads directed against them by the whole Islamic world. al-Qaida would become an army.

Think before you write, and think before you act.

...Still waiting to hear if/when the US plans to meet its own obligations under NPT.

OD: I like your idea.

I'm going to check to see what wp.com policy is about publishing the IP addresses of the pathetic commenters who try to discourage debate by soiling their diapers in public.

Yes, I'm referring to you Kara.

I would like to invite all open-minded people searching for the truth about the middle east to come to Israel and to speak with the people, all the people, Jewish, Arab Moslem, Arab Christian, Druze, etc. Israel is, contrary to popular perception, an incredibly multi-cultural society, and such meetings often do much to disabuse people of their sometimes superficial notions. As for all the nuts out there, well, there's not a lot anyone can do for them...

I've been to Israel, which is indeed quite multi-cultural and certainly very democratic with lively public debate.

Unfortunately I was arrested by Israeli soldiers for wandering around the Negev near Dimona. Which was later revealed by Mordechai Vanunu to be the site of Israel's secret nuclear weapons program.

Having said that, the Israeli soldiers were mostly friendly, and eventually drove me back to Beersheba.

Yes, Iran, Israel, Iraq, Palestine and Terror are important but what about America itself? We're being overrun by poor people (= "migrants" or "illegal aliens") and nothing's been done about it. Do we have to erect a colossal statue of O'Reilly on the border?

the fatal mistake was not to breath life into the Fatah
palestinians during the past five years.

I have to agree with Mr. Casey who makes an important and compelling argument. Neither Israel nor Iran can afford to strike one another with Nuclear weapons; the result would irreparably damage not only the victim but also the aggressor. Despite what the general populace may think, those in power in both countries are not 'loons', they are intelligent men who fully understand the implications of a nuclear strike.

In reference to the Arab and Israeli bashing that has been posted, is it really necessary? I'd love to know if the bashers are even Arabs or Israelis! Frankly I am sick of it; it does nothing to help the situation and only leads to more animosity.

I am an Arab and I have visited Israel on more occasions that I can count. It is a multi-cultural open society and, quite frankly - with the exception of Jerusalem, which is a very tense city - I never once felt threatened or ill at ease. In fact, being one of the first Jordanians to cross into Israel after the Peace Treaty was signed between Jordan ad Israel I was given a royal reception wherever I went and even met Israelis that cried with joy at the knowledge that I was a Jordanian visiting their country

Please understand, I - as an Arab - have my beefs with Israel, especially with their treatment of the Palestinians, however, there are, in all countries, good and bad people and to generalize shows the complete ignorance that many (dare I say most?) people share regarding both Arabs and Israelis. People forget that we are cousins, family, that have lived together - peacefully - for hundreds of years. It was only when foreign elements came into the land that problems really began, but that's a whole other argument.

Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Walters for clearing up the truth, Jews and Arabs are both Semites and this constant use of the words 'Anti-Semitism' to descried Arab feelings towards Jews is just another show of ignorance.

iran will make nukes
iran will nuke israel
israli subs will vaporize all the following countries....
iran - iraqe - syria - jordan - afganostan and fefinitly pakistan. servive or not the mad dog (israel is quite mad)...well set the world back 20 years, which is not a bad idea...at least all this war baloney will stop...and we can get ready for,,,?

Some intelligent observations here. A fair bit of 'knee-jerk reaction' and, sadly, a good dose of 'plain misinformed' and outright Jew-hate.
Critics of Israel who attempt to distinguish "Zionist entity" from "Jews" are disingenuous in the extreme. Zionism /Zionists is what Jews need to do and be to secure a national haven against the next global pogrom of extermination of our people. Yes, I am a Jew!
The comment, re: nuclear bombs from Iran wiping out Palestinians as well as Israelis is well observed. However, extremist Muslims are good at justifying the deaths of millions of Muslims during 'jihad' - no doubt, the millions of dead Palestinians would all be mourned and celebrated as "noble martyrs" for Islam. Not that any non-Palestinian Muslims really care two figs for the Palestinians. The invasion of the (United Nations') newly recognised state of Israel in 1947 was not to help the Palestinians - it was to wipe out the Jews! Why didn't the Arabic "brother" states around Israel embrace and nationalise the (voluntary) Palestinian refugees of 1948 and 1967? [A: Because they all assumed, wrongly, that the Muslims would eventually wipe out Israel]. Further, there are millions of square miles all over the Muslim world which could've been offered to the Palestinians as a national homeland.. Not one Muslim country has offered even one square inch for the Palestinians. Worse, let's not forget where the "West Bank" got its name from... That's right, from Jordan's 1950 annexation of the territory! [Bet you don't find that in your history books these days, do you!?]
Israel is fighting a permanent existential war. Every war she has been in - reactive or pre-emptive - is a struggle for her survival. Accusations of Israeli imperialism and Jewish colonialism are nothing but bigoted Jew-hate in the extreme. If Israel wanted to conquer the Middle East, she could have done so 10 times over since 1967.
Currently, Israel is being increasingly turned into a pariah by almost all the world except the CURRENT Anglo-American world's leaders. This will soon change - sadly - forcing Israel to unilateral action.
I can see no alternative for Israel but to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. The question of international rights are not pertinent here: Israel views the situation from the perspective of her survival. So would any country being threatened by an extremist who shouts in public that a near neighbour nation ought to be "wiped off the map". I wonder what smug Jew haters (masquerading as "Zionist Israel objectors") would say if, for example, some Frenchman or Spaniard said "England should be wiped off the map!" - or -"Germany should be wiped off the map!"
Does that mean there will be a vast-scale world war by 2007? Does anyone really doubt this?